Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Undead (2003)
1/10
The movie Ed Wood would've made if he had a twin...
9 February 2004
What the Spierig Bros. forgot about when they made this film was perhaps the very reason for filmmaking: Uniqueness. Severely lacking in creativity, the film resorts to showcasing the superficial aspects of the zombie horror genre (blood, violence, gore, etc) without thinking any further. These superficial elements work in a film that places more importance on uniqueness and uses the gory elements as colour.

Just about every aspect of the film falls well below par. The editing is incredibly self-conscious, cutting at any opportunity, it's whimsical and thoughtless. How on earth this could have been storyboarded and then cut in such an amateurish manner is beyond me. The make-up is caked onto the actors. The music is as derivative as the story. Think John Williams, with a dash of John Williams then take away the interesting melodies. The cinematography jumps from filter to filter. In fact, it mirrors the coherence of the narrative. The script is pitifully childish – not entertainingly childish, just boring childish. And in my books there is no greater evil than boredom on a screen.

The way the brothers choose to credit themselves with everything but the kitchen sink sums up their true objective. It reminds me of a commercial I've seen where a lone filmmaker rolls the credits of his film, placing his name for each and every one of them. For an ad this is humourous. For this theatrical release, however, the film doesn't credit, it brags. What is ostensibly a group of filmmakers getting together and having fun with an idea turns out to be an ego trip.

I couldn't help but be amused by the commentary on the DVD where the filmmakers incessantly highlight the shortcuts they took due to budgetary constraints...."and look what we achieved!" is implied by them in earnest. A bit less self-congratulating wouldn't have gone astray. Even more amusing was the 35 minute making-of featurette. Imagine a real-life Spinal Tap. Now transpose that to a group of filmmakers. I think laughing over this DVD extra was the most satisfying part of my DVD viewing experience.

But don't take my word for it. Really, the movie speaks for itself...
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A stab at men, not women! *SPOILERS*
20 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Although I do not believe the movie is remarkable, it was certainly worth a watch, but was misunderstood by almost everyone I have read or spoken to!

This movie is taking a stab at men, not women. The character of Dr. T is a great send-up of men who fool themselves into thinking they are truly altruistic, but are merely patriarchs disguised as admirers of women. What the audience is meant to realise is that his seemingly selfless demeanour is just a smokescreen for the real Dr. T: a man who only wants to be needed by women. He has lost the true meaning of what helping others means, and is trapped in his self-important world where his expertise is used for upper class, neurotic, highly-strung women. He has hoodwinked himself into believing that he is making a difference in the world, when all he is doing is placating his own ego by falsely complimenting his mostly unworthy patients.

The women are exaggerations of a culture of spoilt brats who have nothing else to do with their time but shop and be pampered. They have returned to a simulated childhood. Dr. T has been polarised in this culture and blinds himself by reveling in the fatherly attention he receives. Are these really *BIG* problems he deals with???

The ending makes perfect sense and is a wonderful re-birth of his new, sincere life. "It's a boy!" he screams in delight. He understands the meaning of life, his work, and altruistic service. The Mexico we see is a world where people *TRULY* need him, and Dr. T doesn't want to be needed merely to placate his ego. The tornado is a real "snap out of it!" catalyst to a barren landscape, perfect for a new start. How could no-one like this humanistic ending!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Subtlety of a freight train
30 July 2001
Watching this movie I tried my best to experience the subtext, only - everything was so spelled out and manipulative, there was nothing for me to do. De Heer obviously doesn't trust an audience when it comes to interpreting characters. Every single one was simply in the film for the sake of highlighting Dreyfuss' character. Nothing more. This is the type of movie where the director's arm leaps out of the screen and clenches your face, telling you where to look, what to feel and how exactly to react. Give us some credit, Rolf!
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dogma (1999)
4/10
Awful...(*slight spoiler alert*)
11 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
From an atheist point of view (I mention atheist because offence was no reason), this was extremely disappointing from Smith. Any film that has a giant poo monster as a site gag is obviously delusional. The characters were contrived around what Smith assumed was a clever script. Shallow and self-satisfying, I can't believe Smith actually created this...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Angst (2000)
4/10
Lowering the standards of Australian film...
30 June 2001
This film is a self-conscious, derivative mistake with both writer (O'Connor) and director (Nettheim) displaying self-indulgence without the quality usually associated with such behaviour.

This was a movie desperately uttering the dialogue of countless pop culture movies seen from Kevin Smith, Justin Kerrigan, and even Quentin Tarrantino to a lesser degree. Why clone? And why do it so badly? I think Anthony O'Connor needs to try and create characters that are fleshed out and interesting - not just saying 'clever' things. The dialogue was, in a word, try-hard. The only thing that came out of anyone's mouth were the writer's words. He needs to develop. To do more with the characters, instead of showing his smugness. He needs to show us he can create interesting characters. Ones that express *authentic* feelings about themes in the film: getting over love, friendship, alienation, obsession... with some true insights - not shallow punchlines in the guise of enlightenment. An immature effort all round. Good for showing amongst the makers' friends as a laugh - not in a cinema, please!
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Intriguing, philosophical inspection
16 April 2000
Malick tries his best to explore human existence and our view on nature. It isn't a war movie as such, but really uses war to highlight man's struggle for enlightenment. It frames still shots frequently to illustrate the beauty of nature and how man belongs to it. The crocodile scene was a fantastic way of showing the similarity it has with a soldier.

I loved this movie. It leaves profound questions in my subconscious to this day. Why don't we embrace mother nature instead of destroying it? Is nature as destructive as we are? Where does subjectivity come from? Is love something man has conjured up or does it really exist?

Fantastic...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
NOT a good movie, in my books....
15 January 2000
I do not agree with most of the voters with this movie. The GREATEST obstacle being the extremely poor script. I would like to urge anyone to watch the movie and take note of the screenplay. It really sounds like a sub-standard T.V movie. The direction was also quite sterile and came across unbelievably phony. I can't understand what all the fuss was about. It was well acted and the story and narrative was fantastic, but without a script you have nothing. It was as though I was looking at a very mediocre painting on some high quality canvas!
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed